DOCSLIB.ORG

Boc-Boe Sovereign Default Database: What's New in 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Boc-Boe Sovereign Default Database: What's New in 2021 BoC–BoE Sovereign Default Database: What’s new in 2021? by David Beers1, 1 Elliot Jones2, Zacharie Quiviger and John Fraser Walsh3 The views expressed this report are solely those of the authors. No responsibility for them should be attributed to the Bank of Canada or the Bank of England. 1 [email protected], Center for Financial Stability, New York, NY 10036, USA 2 [email protected], Financial Markets Department, Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Auckland 1010, New Zealand 3 [email protected], [email protected] Financial and Enterprise Risk Department Bank of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0G9 1 Acknowledgements We are grateful to Mark Joy, James McCormack, Carol Ann Northcott, Alexandre Ruest, Jean- François Tremblay and Tim Willems for their helpful comments and suggestions. We thank Banu Cartmell, Marie Cavanaugh, John Chambers, James Chapman, Stuart Culverhouse, Patrisha de Leon-Manlagnit, Archil Imnaishvili, Marc Joffe, Grahame Johnson, Jamshid Mavalwalla, Philippe Muller, Papa N’Diaye, Jean-Sébastien Nadeau, Carolyn A. Wilkins and Peter Youngman for their contributions to earlier research papers on the database, Christian Suter for sharing previously unpublished data he compiled with Volker Bornschier and Ulrich Pfister in 1986, Carole Hubbard for her excellent editorial assistance, and Michael Dalziel and Natalie Brule, and Sandra Newton, Sally Srinivasan and Rebecca Mari, respectively, for their help designing the Bank of Canada and Bank of England web pages and Miranda Wang for her efforts updating the database. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. 2 Introduction Since 2014, the Bank of Canada (BoC) has maintained a comprehensive database of sovereign defaults to systematically measure and aggregate the nominal value of the different types of sovereign government debt in default. The database draws on previously published datasets compiled by various public and private sector sources. It combines elements of these, together with new information, to develop comprehensive estimates of stocks of government obligations in default. These include bonds and other marketable securities as well as bank loans and official loans, valued in US dollars, for the years 1960 to 2020 on both a country-by-country and a global basis. The database is posted on the BoC’s website and is updated annually in partnership with the Bank of England (BoE). This update of the BoC–BoE database—and updates to come—will be useful to researchers analyzing the economic and financial effects of individual sovereign defaults and, importantly, the impacts on global financial stability of episodes involving multiple sovereign defaults. In this paper, we first highlight new developments in sovereign debt defaults in 2020. We provide high-level details on the 48 percent increase in aggregate sovereign debt in default, which was driven chiefly by defaults on foreign currency bonds by Venezuela, Argentina and Puerto Rico. We also describe functionality improvements to the database. We then update some key insights the database provided regarding the number, size and types of defaults. We give a historical overview of debt defaults, including the increase in problematic debt since 2018, the persistence of defaults in highly indebted poor countries, and the shift in bilateral lending toward non–Paris Club lenders.4 Finally, we provide an update on our continued efforts to include reliable estimates of domestic fiscal arrears in the database. What’s new in 2021? In this year’s update, our findings estimate the total value of sovereign debt in default at US$443.2 billion in 2020 (0.5 percent of world public debt), up US$143.6 billion (48 percent) from the revised total of US$299.6 billion in 2019. This outpaces the 13 percent increase in gross world public debt. The data by major creditor categories show that the increase was driven mainly by foreign currency bonds in default, which rose by US$121.2 billion. This reflected: . new defaults by Argentina, Belize, Ecuador and Suriname . a first-time default on foreign currency bonds by Lebanon . a greater amount of interest arrears from ongoing bond defaults by Venezuela and Puerto Rico5 Local currency debt in default increased by US$0.9 billion. This was due mainly to Iraq’s restructuring of its short-term debt into debt with longer-term maturities and lower coupon rates. Defaults affecting official creditors, notably the Paris Club, China and other bilateral lenders, also increased.6 Their loans accounted for US$19.4 billion of the global increase, with the Debt Service 4 The permanent members of the Paris Club are Australia, Austria, Belg ium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. For more information, see the Paris Club website. 5 Smaller defaults involve not-yet-completed exchanges of old Argentine defaulted bonds and non-performing bonds issued by Nauru and Zimbabwe. 6 These creditor categories exclude the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association. 3 Suspension Initiative (DSSI) playing a relatively modest role.7 The values of defaulted debt in other creditor categories registered smaller changes. Regarding our treatment of countries that participated in the DSSI, in the database we include 2020 debt service deferrals by bilateral official creditors for sovereigns that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank considers to be already in or at high risk of debt distress. The suspension period for debt service payments was originally set to run from May through December 2020 but was later extended through December 2021. Participation in the program by debtor sovereigns is voluntary, and the debt relief provided is intended to be net-present-value neutral. However, our reason for including in the database debt service payments suspended under the DSSI is that without the DSSI, many of these vulnerable sovereigns, some already with other debt arrears, would likely have sought debt relief. Total DSSI debt service deferrals included in the database amount to US$4.7 billion, about 1 percent of the total stock of debt in default we identified globally. Some of the changes in this update are: . additional data for defaults on China’s official loans since 2000 . updated annual data (where available) for each country’s total central government debt . minor revisions of country and aggregate default data for 1960–2019 . data, by country and globally, on domestic arrears since 2005, with the most comprehensive data in the years 2018–20 (see the discussion of domestic arrears) We also updated two tabs at the bottom of the main database spreadsheet: DATA provides a downloadable format for the global and country default data, and DEBTOTAL provides country data on total government debt stocks. The previously included DOMARS tab is not included in this year’s update because the domestic arrears data are now incorporated under the first tab. Finally, all data are now also downloadable in the CSV, JSON and XML formats. Key insights from the database Since 1960, 146 governments—two thirds of the current universe of 215 sovereigns—have defaulted on their obligations.8 Defaults had the biggest global impact in the 1980s, reaching US$450 billion, or 6.1 percent of world public debt, by 1990. The scale of defaults has fallen substantially since then. Over the past decade, between 0.3 and 0.9 percent of world public debt has been in default. In 2020, the amount was estimated at 0.5 percent. Total sovereign debt in default increased by 48 percent in 2020, considerably outpacing the 13 percent increase in gross world public debt. 7 In response to the global COVID-19 economic and financial shock, in 2020 the G20—in concert with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—launched the DSSI, offering temporary relief on debt service payments owed to bilateral official creditors by 73 low-income countries. The G20 also asked private creditors to participate on comparable terms but was rebuffed. For more information about the DSSI, see World Bank Group (2021). 8 While 154 sovereigns are listed in the database, 6 (Bahamas, Namibia, Palau, Sint Maarten, Tuvalu, and West Bank and Gaza) include only domestic arrears, which we consider to be effective defaults, albeit not on conventional sovereign obligations. For more information on domestic arrears, see page 11 of this paper. 4 As in recent years, the distribution of defaults in 2020 is highly skewed in terms of value. Just three sovereigns—Venezuela, Argentina and Puerto Rico—accounted for 38 percent of the US-dollar value of debt in default globally. The top 10 sovereigns in default accounted for 87 percent. Our database includes the debt owed to official creditors, and this provides insight into sovereign default “clusters,” which we define as spikes in the number of defaults followed by sharp declines. The data show that while the US-dollar amounts can be low in absolute terms, defaults to official creditors often take longer to resolve than defaults involving private creditors. A high number of low-income sovereigns often remain in default to official creditors for long periods. As a percentage of total government debt, only 50 sovereigns—6 percent of observations— defaulted on shares ranging between 50 and 100 percent of their total outstanding government debt. In contrast, about 72 percent of observations are equal to or below 10 percent of government debt. These data confirm sovereigns’ tendency to “default selectively” and show how shares of sovereign debt in default are skewed toward lower values. Despite an uptick in 2020, over the past decade defaults involving the Paris Club group of official creditors have declined in importance. Defaults involving other bilateral official creditors, however, most notably China, are growing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Judgment Claims in Receivership Proceedings*
    JUDGMENT CLAIMS IN RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS* JOHN K. BEACH Connecticuf Supreme Court of Errors In view of the importance of the subject it is unfortunate that so few of the reported cases on equitable receiverships of corporations have dealt in any comprehensive way with the principles underlying the administrating of the fund for the benefit of creditors. The result is that controversy has outstripped authoritative decision, and the subject is unsettled. To this generalization an exception must be noted in respect of the special topic of the application of current rail- way income to current expenses, before the payment of mortgage 1 indebtedness. On another disputed topic, the provability of imma.ure claims, the law, or at least the right principle of decision, has been settled, by the notable opinion of Judge Noyes in Pennsylvania Steel Company v. New York City Railway Company,2 followed and rein- forced by that of Mr. Justice Holmes in William Filene'sSons Company v. Weed.' Notwithstanding these important exceptions, the dearth of authority on the general subject is such that Judge Noyes refers to a case cited in his opinion as "almost the only case in which rules have "been formulated with respect to the provability of claims against "insolvent corporations."4 Upon the particular phase of the subject here discussed, the decisions are to some extent in conflict, and no attempt seems to have been made in text books or decisions to examine the question in the light of principle. Black, for example, dismisses the subject by saying it. is generally conceded that a receiver and the corporation whose property is under his charge "are so far in privity that a judgment against the * This paper deals only with judgments against the defendant in the receiver- ship, regarded as evidence of the validity and amount of the judgment creditor's claims for dividends to be paid out of the fund in the receiver's hands.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Represented Creditor
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS A GUIDE FOR THE SELF-REPRESENTED CREDITOR IN A BANKRUPTCY CASE June 2014 Table of Contents Subject Page Number Legal Authority, Statutes and Rules ....................................................................................... 1 Who is a Creditor? .......................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of the Bankruptcy Process from the Creditor’s Perspective ................... 2 A Creditor’s Objections When a Person Files a Bankruptcy Petition ....................... 3 Limited Stay/No Stay ..................................................................................................... 3 Relief from Stay ................................................................................................................ 4 Violations of the Stay ...................................................................................................... 4 Discharge ............................................................................................................................. 4 Working with Professionals ....................................................................................................... 4 Attorneys ............................................................................................................................. 4 Pro se .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UK (England and Wales)
    Restructuring and Insolvency 2006/07 Country Q&A UK (England and Wales) UK (England and Wales) Lyndon Norley, Partha Kar and Graham Lane, Kirkland and Ellis International LLP www.practicallaw.com/2-202-0910 SECURITY AND PRIORITIES ■ Floating charge. A floating charge can be taken over a variety of assets (both existing and future), which fluctuate from 1. What are the most common forms of security taken in rela- day to day. It is usually taken over a debtor's whole business tion to immovable and movable property? Are any specific and undertaking. formalities required for the creation of security by compa- nies? Unlike a fixed charge, a floating charge does not attach to a particular asset, but rather "floats" above one or more assets. During this time, the debtor is free to sell or dispose of the Immovable property assets without the creditor's consent. However, if a default specified in the charge document occurs, the floating charge The most common types of security for immovable property are: will "crystallise" into a fixed charge, which attaches to and encumbers specific assets. ■ Mortgage. A legal mortgage is the main form of security interest over real property. It historically involved legal title If a floating charge over all or substantially all of a com- to a debtor's property being transferred to the creditor as pany's assets has been created before 15 September 2003, security for a claim. The debtor retained possession of the it can be enforced by appointing an administrative receiver. property, but only recovered legal ownership when it repaid On default, the administrative receiver takes control of the the secured debt in full.
    [Show full text]
  • QM Small Creditor Flow Chart
    SSmmaallll CCrreeddiittoorr QQuuaalliiffiieedd MMoorrttggaaggeess RReefflleeccttss rruulleess iinn eeffffeecctt oonn MMaarrcchh 11,, 22002211 bbuutt ddooeess nnoott rreefflleecctt aammeennddmmeennttss mmaaddee bbyy tthhee EEccoonnoommiicc GGrroowwtthh,, RReegguullaattoorryy RReelliieeff,, aanndd CCoonnssuummeerr PPrrootteeccttiioonn AAcctt.. Type of Compliance Presumption: SmSmaallll CCrreeddiitotorr QQuuaalliifificcaatitioonn Loan Features Balloon Payment Features Underwriting Points and Fees Portfolio Higher-Priced Loan Did you do ALL of the following?: Did you and your affiliates: Did you and your affiliates who Does the loan have ANY of the Rebuttable Presumption At the time of consummation: are creditors that extended following characteristics?: (1) Consider and verify the consumer’s YES Applies Extend 2,000 or fewer first-lien, closed- Does the loan amount fall within the following covered transactions during the Potential Small debt obligations and income or assets? STOP end residential mortgages that are points-and-fees limits? Was the loan subject to forward last calendar year have: (1) negative amortization; Creditor QM [via § 1026.43(c)(7), (e)(2)(v)]; = Non-Small Creditor QM (QM is presumed to comply subject to ATR requirements in the last YES commitment? AND YES YES = Non-Balloon-Payment QM with ATR requirements if calendar year? You can exclude loans Points-and-fees caps (adjusted annually) Assets below $2 billion (as annually OR AND it’s a higher-priced loan, but YES [§ 1026.43(e)(5)(i)(C), (f)(1)(v)] that you originated and kept in portfolio consumers can rebut the adjusted) at the end of the last STOP If Loan Amount ≥ $100,000, then = 3% of total or that your affiliate originated and kept (2) interest-only features; (2) Calculate the consumer’s monthly presumption by showing calendar year? = Non-QM If $100,000 > Loan Amount ≥ $60,000, then = $3,000 in portfolio.
    [Show full text]
  • Creditor Control of Corporations Operating Receiverships Corporate Reorganizations Chester Rohrlich
    Cornell Law Review Volume 19 Article 3 Issue 1 December 1933 Creditor Control of Corporations Operating Receiverships Corporate Reorganizations Chester Rohrlich Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Chester Rohrlich, Creditor Control of Corporations Operating Receiverships Corporate Reorganizations, 19 Cornell L. Rev. 35 (1933) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol19/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CREDITOR CONTROL OF CORPORATIONS; OPERATING RECEIVERSHIPS; COR- PORATE REORGANIZATIONS* CHESTER RoHRmicnt A corporation is, on a smaller scale (in some instances on a larger scale), like the political state, in that beneath the cloak of its unity there is a continuous, at times active but more frequently passive, struggle for power among the various groups in interest. Some of these groups, such as the public that deals with it or the employees who work for it, have as yet achieved only the the barest minimum of legal right to control its destinies.' In the arena of the law, the traditional conflict is between the stockholders2 and the creditors. There is an increasing convergence of interest between these two groups as the former become more and more "investors" rather than entrepreneurs, and the latter less and less inclined, or able, to stand on the letter of their bond'3 both are in the last analysis dependent *This article is the substance of one of the chapters of the author's forthcoming book THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF CORPORATE CONTROL.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK for PUBLICATION ------X in Re: RICHARD HARTLEY Chapter 7 and KARA L
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR PUBLICATION --------------------------------------------------------X In re: RICHARD HARTLEY Chapter 7 and KARA L. HARTLEY, No. 09-37770 (CGM) Debtors. --------------------------------------------------------X JENNIFER ESPOSITO, Plaintiff, v. Adv. Pro. No. 10-9055 (CGM) RICHARD HARTLEY and KARA L. HARTLEY, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: DRAKE LOEB HELLER KENNEDY GOGERTY GABA & RODD, PLLC 555 Hudson Valley Avenue Suite 100 New Windsor, NY 12553 By: Stuart Kossar Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jennifer Esposito GREHER LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1161 Little Britain Road Suite B New Windsor, NY 12553 By: Warren Greher Attorney for the Defendants, Richard and Kara Hartley MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT The plaintiff brings this adversary proceeding to except from discharge a judgment obtained against the defendants’ deli and catering business, Hartley’s Catering, Inc. (“Hartley’s Catering”). Because the defendants dissolved the corporation without giving plaintiff notice and opportunity to enforce her judgment against it, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for Page 1 of 12 on the judgment. The debt is non-dischargeable as property obtained by false pretenses, pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) and for failure to list the plaintiff in the petition pursuant to 523(a)(3). Background On November 13 2003, Hartley’s Catering was incorporated in the state of New York. Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 1. On February 21, 2008, the New York State Commission of the Division of Human Rights found Hartley’s Catering d/b/a Schlesinger’s Deli Depot, liable to the plaintiff in the amount of $300,000. Stmt. Material Facts ¶ 50.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Fdic As Conservator Or Receiver
    September 26, 2008 OVERVIEW OF THE FDIC AS CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER This memorandum is an overview of the receivership and conservatorship authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). In view of the many and complex specific issues that may arise in this context, this memorandum is necessarily an overview, but it does give particular reference to counterparty issues that might arise in the case of a relatively large complex bank such as a significant regional bank and outlines elements of the FDIC framework which differ from a corporate bankruptcy. This memorandum has three parts: (1) background on the legal framework governing FDIC resolutions, highlighting changes and developments since the 1990s; (2) an outline of six distinctive aspects of the FDIC approach with comparison to the bankruptcy law provisions; and (3) a final section illustrating issues and uncertainties in the FDIC resolutions process through a more detailed review of two examples – treatment of loan securitizations and participations, and standby letters of credit.1 Relevant additional materials include: the pertinent provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance (the "FDI") Act2 and FDIC rules3, statements of policy4 and advisory opinions;5 the FDIC Resolution Handbook6 which reflects the FDIC's high level description of the receivership process, including a contrast with the bankruptcy framework; recent speeches of FDIC Chairman 1 While not exhaustive, these discussions are meant to be exemplary of the kind of analysis that is appropriate in analyzing any transaction with a bank counterparty. 2 Esp. Section 11 et seq., http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/1000- 1200.html#1000sec.11 3 Esp.
    [Show full text]
  • Database of Sovereign Defaults, 2017 by David Beers and Jamshid Mavalwalla
    Technical Report No. 101 / Rapport technique no 101 Database of Sovereign Defaults, 2017 by David Beers and Jamshid Mavalwalla June 2017 (An earlier version of this technical report was published in June 2016.) Database of Sovereign Defaults, 2017 David Beers1 and Jamshid Mavalwalla2 1Special Advisor, International Directorate Bank of England London, United Kingdom EC2R 8AH [email protected] 2Funds Management and Banking Department Bank of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0G9 [email protected] The views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors. No responsibility for them should be attributed to the Bank of Canada. ISSN 1919-689X © 2017 Bank of Canada Acknowledgements We are grateful to Allan Crawford, Grahame Johnson, Philippe Muller, Peter Youngman, Carolyn A. Wilkins, John Chambers, Stuart Culverhouse, Archil Imnaishvili, Marc Joffe, Mark Joy and James McCormack for their helpful comments and suggestions, to Christian Suter for sharing with us previously unpublished data he compiled with Volker Bornschier and Ulrich Pfister in 1986, and to Jean-Sébastien Nadeau for his many contributions to this and earlier versions of the technical report and the database. We thank Norman Yeung and Isabelle Brazeau for their able technical assistance, and Glen Keenleyside, Meredith Fraser-Ohman and Carole Hubbard for their excellent editorial assistance. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. i Abstract Until recently, there have been few efforts to systematically measure and aggregate the nominal value of the different types of sovereign government debt in default. To help fill this gap, the Bank of Canada’s Credit Rating Assessment Group (CRAG) has developed a comprehensive database of sovereign defaults posted on the Bank of Canada’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coronavirus Crisis and Debt Relief Loan Forbearance and Other Debt Relief Have Been Part of the Effort to Help Struggling Households and Businesses
    The Coronavirus Crisis and Debt Relief Loan forbearance and other debt relief have been part of the effort to help struggling households and businesses By John Mullin he pandemic’s harmful financial effects have been distributed unevenly — so much so that the headline macroeconomic numbers generally have not captured the experiences of those T who have been hardest hit financially. Between February and April, for example, the U.S. personal savings rate actually increased by 25 percentage points. This macro statistic reflected the reality that the majority of U.S. workers remained employed, received tax rebates, and reduced their consumption. But the savings data did not reflect the experiences of many newly unemployed service sector workers. And there are additional puzzles in the data. The U.S. economy is now in the midst of the worst economic downturn since World War II, yet the headline stock market indexes — such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 — are near record highs, and housing prices have gener- ally remained firm. How can this be? Many observers agree that the Fed’s expansionary monetary policy is playing a substantial role in supporting asset prices, but another part of the explanation may be that the pandemic’s economic damage has been concentrated among firms that are too small to be included in the headline stock indexes and among low-wage workers, who are not a major factor in the U.S. housing market. 4 E con F ocus | s Econd/T hird Q uarTEr | 2020 Share this article: https://bit.ly/debt-covid Policymakers have taken aggressive steps to miti- borrowers due to the pandemic.” They sought to assure gate the pandemic’s financial fallout.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquidators, Receivers and Examiners Their Duties and Powers
    Liquidators, Receivers and Examiners Their duties and powers A quick guide Introduction We have produced this information booklet to explain the powers, duties and responsibilities of liquidators, receivers and examiners under the Companies Acts. What are liquidations, receiverships and examinerships? The liquidation of a company is also known as ‘winding up’ a company. The process takes the company out of existence in an orderly way by paying debts from any available assets. Receivership is used by banks or other lenders to sell a company asset that was promised to them if the company failed to repay its loan as agreed. Examinership is a process that protects a company from its creditors (the people to whom it owes money) while efforts are being made to keep it running as a going concern. What are liquidators, receivers and examiners? A liquidator is the person who winds up a company. A receiver is the person who sells particular company assets on behalf of a lender. Where a loan is secured on a company’s entire business, a ‘receiver manager’ can be appointed as manager of the business during the receivership. Once a receiver raises enough money to pay back the debt, their job is finished. Liquidators, Receivers and Examiners Their duties and powers Examiners consider if a company can be saved and, if it can, they prepare the rescue plan. Who can act as liquidators, receivers or examiners? Liquidators, receivers and examiners do not need to have any specific qualifications under the law. However, they are usually practising accountants. To make sure that liquidators, receivers and examiners work independently of the company, they cannot be: • a director or employee of the company; or • a family member, partner or employee of a director.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereigns in Distress: Do They Need Bankruptcy?
    MICHELLE J. WHITE University of California, San Diego Sovereigns in Distress: Do They Need Bankruptcy? SHOULD THERE BE a sovereign bankruptcy procedure for countries in financial distress? This paper explores the use of U.S. bankruptcy law as a model for a sovereign bankruptcy procedure and asks whether adoption of such a procedure would lead to a more orderly process of sovereign debt restructuring. It assumes that a quick and orderly debt restructuring process is more efficient than a prolonged and disorderly one, because a lengthy process of debt restructuring takes a high toll on debtor countries’ economies as well as harming creditors in general. I concentrate on three goals for a sovereign bankruptcy procedure: preventing individual credi- tors or groups of creditors from suing the debtor for repayment, prevent- ing groups of creditors from strategically delaying negotiations or acting as holdouts, and increasing the likelihood that private creditors will pro- vide new loans to sovereign debtors in financial distress, thus reducing the pressure on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to fund bailouts. I conclude that nonbankruptcy alternatives are less likely to accomplish these goals than a sovereign bankruptcy procedure. U.S. Bankruptcy Law and Important Trade-offs in Bankruptcy Three sections of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code are of possible relevance for a future international bankruptcy procedure: Chapter 7 (bankruptcy I am grateful to Edwin Truman and Marcus Miller for helpful comments and discussion. 1 2 Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1:2002 liquidation), Chapter 11 (corporate reorganization), and Chapter 9 (munic- ipal bankruptcy). Chapter 7 Chapter 7 is the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Debtbook Diplomacy China’S Strategic Leveraging of Its Newfound Economic Influence and the Consequences for U.S
    POLICY ANALYSIS EXERCISE Debtbook Diplomacy China’s Strategic Leveraging of its Newfound Economic Influence and the Consequences for U.S. Foreign Policy Sam Parker Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School Gabrielle Chefitz Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School PAPER MAY 2018 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.belfercenter.org Statements and views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, the Harvard Kennedy School, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. This paper was completed as a Harvard Kennedy School Policy Analysis Exercise, a yearlong project for second-year Master in Public Policy candidates to work with real-world clients in crafting and presenting timely policy recommendations. Design & layout by Andrew Facini Cover photo: Container ships at Yangshan port, Shanghai, March 29, 2018. (AP) Copyright 2018, President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of America POLICY ANALYSIS EXERCISE Debtbook Diplomacy China’s Strategic Leveraging of its Newfound Economic Influence and the Consequences for U.S. Foreign Policy Sam Parker Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School Gabrielle Chefitz Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School PAPER MARCH 2018 About the Authors Sam Parker is a Master in Public Policy candidate at Harvard Kennedy School. Sam previously served as the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. As an academic fellow at U.S. Pacific Command, he wrote a report on anticipating and countering Chinese efforts to displace U.S.
    [Show full text]